Everyone agreed that temperatures had plummeted since 1940, and no one doubted that the tree ring data accurately reflected the decline in temperature.

So Hansen and Mann had a huge problem. They had to create a spike in temperatures, get rid of the tree-ring data, get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, get rid of the 1930s, get rid of the 1970s ice age scare, and get rid of the Little Ice Age.

Warming the 1970s didn’t make much sense, so they instead chose to cool the 1930s. Step one was for Hansen to whack a few tenths of a degree off the pre-1950 temperatures.

Black line is the 1975 National Academy of Sciences Northern Hemisphere plot. Red line is the current GISS northern hemisphere plot.

Hansen getting rid of the 1910-1940 warm period gave Mann cover to claim that something was wrong with Briffa’s trees – and throw them out. This opened the door for the creation of hockey stick.

Once the flood gates opened, they went nuts – erasing the MWP and LIA, erasing the 1930s and jacking up recent temperatures. All over the world, the past got cooler and the present got warmer.

Over the past decade, Hansen has made massive alterations to the historical US temperature record.

And now we have this completely manufactured temperature trend. The spike that we see is indeed Mann-made, and Hansen-made.

There was never anything wrong with Briffa’s trees. Mike’s Nature Trick was much worse than it seems. The red below shows the trees that were removed. They were very similar to the uncorrupted temperature graphs, and there was never a valid reason to doubt their accuracy.

65 Responses to History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

Terrific – some of the charts could use a legend. Also reference to the exact source of each table would be valuable. Maybe not include the personal comments and . Maybe present it a little better. This is then worthy of an oped in WSJ or equivalent. I’m happy to help.

Perhaps Gaia will emerge from her PSU titled class ( I cant believe my University has a class on Earth Systems referencing GAIA… Why not one on Natural cycles, Eccl 1:9, there is nothing new under the sun) and answer the challenges to all this. Would rather see Dr Mann do it, but that doesnt seem to work

Great reference, Joe! Don’t think much of a response is to be expected from Lady Gaia, however. And I really don’t think she’s the author of Genesis 8:22, either: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and COLD and HEAT, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” Miss you and your great reports on KYW. Continued success!

It’s also shocking when I show this stuff to people, and they are uninterested in the most basic question, “why were these adjustments made”? Most true-believers simply accept that “the experts” know what they’re doing.

The nature of the changes, particularly stark in the GISS preset/1999 differential graph, cry out for explanation given the clear trend in the adjustments. Simply put, how is it that we are so bad at measuring temp today, with much better technology, methods, etc., than people were 50-100 years ago?

And then they did the same for US temp.’s. Here is Hansen in 1999 saying that the US climate hadn’t warmed.http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
And if you to the US temp data herehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and plug in 1998 as the first year, annual ave temp, and eyeball the two charts together, you will see that the temps the ave annual temp of the US the past decade has been cooler than most of the last century. This is “according to Hansen 1999”. Before the real bad took over completely.

Deception began soon after the UN was established in Oct 1945 out of fear of the “nuclear fires” that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 and Nagasaki on 9 Aug1945.

By coincidence the first scientist to examine the ashes of Hiroshima in Aug 1945, Dr. Kazuo Kuroda of the Imperial University of Tokyo [1-3], became my research mentor fifteen years later (1960) and assigned this research topic: “The Origin of the Solar System and Its Elements”

The “nuclear fires” of 1945 were ignited by the sudden release of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of atoms of uranium (element #92) and plutonium (element #94), respectively.

Early acts of deception were the publication of false models of

a.) The cores of stars [4,5], and
b.) The cores of atoms [6].

Research grant funds were directed through anonymous reviews after WWII to protect these deceptive models of the cores of stars and atoms from precise nuclear and space age measurements summarized here [7].

OH! That is great news Thank you. It is about time. Of course it will probably be another white wash. SIGH With both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street targeting the Bankers the politicians did not have much choice so now they have to figure out how to sweep all the dirty linen under the bed.

For what it is worth Keynes ( Keynesian Economics) had close ties to the Fabians & London School of Economics. Do not forget an Employee of the World Bank lead the IPCC.

Keynes still has a significant presence in the academia through New Keynesianism (e.g. Stiglitz, Kruman), and receives prominence each time the US government agencies and Federal Reserve Bank – that have diligently followed his ideas – mess up things.

Indeed, that’s the other point – that Keynes is still very prominent inside government agencies. Keynes is the cause of serious government failure across the world and significant devaluation of currencies. The (Fabian) London School of Economics, the League of Nations, the New Deal, the welfare state, various international central bank concepts that led to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Brettonwoods system which led to the collapse of the gold standard, and even the United Nations – all have been strongly influenced by the Fabians, but more particularly Keynes.

The curious thing about the Hockey Stick was that no other temperature reconstruction up until that point from any other researcher or research group had that particular shape. So how did an outlier study by one small group of individuals morph into a ‘scientific consensus’ on what had happened up until that point in time?

Because this one was a pathway to increased tax revenue, from CO2 “Endangerment” to Carbon based taxes and the resulting energy cost increases as in CT and CA which just are well (or not so well) hidden taxes.

BoM/ENSO vs Hockey Stick. Alien vs Predator. Both Fantasy, both fraudulent to the tune of many millions – and both contributing to the destruction of Scientific Integrity and the rise of a disbelieving and disillusioned populace. What to do about it?
Continue to hammer the bastards – and wait for Nature to ‘freeze’ their arses! (and their funding.)

I thought we argued about this, you can’t be serious. “Both Fantasy, both fraudulent to the tune of millions.” Wow, I think I actually agree with you, for once, but on half of that statement. I don’t know how many times I have to prove to you ENSO index’s role on precipitation.

Well done Steven.
This kind of stuff puts doubts into the minds of the ……… faithful.
It tends to bring out their true identity, which usually boils down to a guilt trip fueled by success, and money, looking for meaning.
They found the easy answer.
Consequences be damned.

This is an excellent compilation of the whole sad, sorry, sordid story, Steve. This is the best summary of the history and machinations of the CAGW scam that I have seen so far. It is a detailed account of the snow-balling lies, frauds, and deceptions in a well written sequence.
This is worthy of development into a major polemic on the Subject of CAGW Fraud.

This is an excellent compilation of the whole sad, sorry, sordid story, Steve. This is the best summary of the history and machinations of the CAGW scam that I have seen so far. It is a detailed account of the snow-balling lies, frauds, and deceptions in a well written sequence.

It is great stuff, Steve.

For further light reading on the subject and more details on Mann’s deception, I would refer you to Monckton’s latest, which is a good overview of the heroic work of McIntyre and McKitrick to uncover the whole mess. Suffice it to say, I don’t think Mann will be going to court against Steyn anytime soon.

Less is more…The graphs, properly referenced with a minimal amount of commentary (limited to the precise actions of the perps) tells the story. It will be mostly ignored, but might be a useful source of investigation in legal proceedings.

You have proven NOTHING Eric, and you still haven’t read ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’! (same goes for Joe Bastardi and others.) The Australian BoM is now using AGW tactics, by giving the media bogus temperature data to broadcast in the daily Weather Reports, ( warmest July in 5 years.) The ‘roots’ of this scam can be traced directly to the University of East Anglia,(circa 1972) and the ENSO fabrication they exported to the World. The Tropical Pacific controls world Precipitation? Where’s the ‘Method’? Where’s the Forecast Mechanism? As i have explained to Joe Bastardi elsewhere on this site, every body of water on the Planet, (including the Atmosphere, and the puddle at the end of the driveway,) is moved by ‘convection’. (not to mention Gravitation, Axial Spin etc.) There is no viable ‘Universal’ forecast mechanism to be found in any Ocean Current Oscillation. The Heat Source variations are too numerous, random and variable. The ENSO crowd have spent forty years telling us they have ‘found the ANSWER’ and perpetuated the Fantasy with convenient after the fact assertions that El Nino means Dry and La Nina means Wet. (We don’t know how, or why it happens, just take our word for it, and continue to pay us!)
Yes, ENSO and AGW are fighting each other. Hopefully they will destroy each other.

The tropical pacific is a large controller of precipitation around the Wow, ENSO and GW are NOT fighting each other, ENSO is fighting people like you and the climate clowns are fighting skeptics like many of us on this websites. You are right to some degree, and I understand the other variables involved here, but ENSO has been observed to have a correlation time and time again with precipitation, and since the fact that oceans ratio to global landmasses is 3 to 1 and the tropics have to the most available energy of any of the global zones, the others being the polar regions, and the temperate regions. The amount of energy change when the temperature is changed one degree centigrade is much higher than that, with the same change over the poles or temperate regions. Essentially, when el nino or la nina occurs, a change in temperature over the oceans, where only a change in .5 degrees centigrade has much larger difference in energy than the equivalent over a landmass, or over other regions of the globe where air is naturally cooler. As specified by Joe Bastardi, the oceans have 1000x as much potential energy than the equivalent unit of the atmosphere, meaning when you put this all together, that a change in energy over the tropics, and over the ocean within 10 degrees of the equator, and when you change it over the biggest ocean, the pacific, will have altering effects on climate for years, and through observation and scientific reasoning we have something that can be used to predict temperatures and rainfall accurately through observed trends over the globe since 1950. Then, you claim, that the ENSO crowd thinks it is”Universal Mechanism” oh please, don’t try to put words into my mouth that weren’t there. I don’t know how many times I have to say this to you, ENSO is one of the MAIN MECHANISMS (drivers) of global climate over a period raging from several months to several years depending on the type of event. “(We don’t know how or why it happens, just take our word for it, and continue to pay us.)” Wow, another baseless claim, and once again you have tried to falsely associate our crowd with the AGW crowd. I would expect that of you considering the book you’re trying to get everyone to read dismantles the ENSO theory, and thus you have an agenda to put forth the ideas in this book, through any means necessary. Thus you express a significant trait of the AGW warming crowd which is: to put forth your agenda through any means necessary and propose the other side the has no idea what they’re talking about, and accuse the other side to having an agenda. Then, like the AGW crowd you also,claim any of their scientific propositions to be “myths or as you’ve described “fantasies.” yet, you continue to do this despite what you’re claiming has not merit or factual basis to it whatsoever.

The part of this I’m curious about is how Mann’s version of the past got to be the basis of the “consensus version” so quickly. What happened in climate science in the 90s does not follow the model laid out by Kuhn in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and it certainly looks as if somebody (Ray Bradley maybe, with help froma few close associates?) manipulated things to bring about this phony revolution.

I see the role of solar activity levels as further skewing that balance thus:

i) A period of more active sun reduces global cloudiness by causing a more positive Arctic Oscillation (AO) which draws the jets and climate zones poleward to reduce global cloudiness and allow more energy into the oceans. That skews ENSO further in favour of El Nino relative to La Nina.

ii) A period of less active sun increases global cloudiness by causing a more negative AO which pushes the jets and climate zones more equatorward to induce more global cloudiness allowing less energy into the oceans. That skews ENSO against El Nino relative to La Nina.

As regards the existence of ENSO in the first place I have a suggestion for that too.

Due to the current landmass distribution the ITCZ is on average north of the equator. The result is that there is a differential in solar energy entering the oceans north and south of the equator.

That differential builds up over time until it reaches a level whereby the excess energy in the southern oceans must be released to the northern oceans despite the constraining effect of the Earth’s rotation acting via the ocean circulation and the wind patterns set up by that rotation.

That energy release from southern to northern oceans happens periodically in pulses hence the ENSO process.

The role of the level of solar activity is then to skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina during the ENSO process depending on whether the net effect of solar behaviour is warming or cooling.

So it isn’t Sun OR Enso. BOTH must be integrated and to some extent they vary independently sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another AND the independent variations in each ocean basis further modulate the net outcome.

Of course the AGW crowd has no clue about this works to effect climate (or they know it, but are just to self-indulged to admit it.) and they just force the blame on CO2. It’s always funny to see them get excited over el ninos, and people like James Hansen scream super el nino because they know that will warm global temperatures, of course by admitting that el nino warms temperatures, they also are admitting to the fact that its oceans, not CO2, which is one of the primary drivers of climate.

This is only the second time I have reblogged somebody else’s work in the four years my blog has been running. The reason is that I often observe lots of pieces of evidence that suggest bias, but rarely are someof the pieces of evidence put together to corroborate each other.
Other bits of evidence (from memory)
1. The Darwen, Australia temperature record.
2. The temperature record for New Zealand.
3. The temperature record for Australia – which has recently be replaced to evade an external audit.
4. The HADCRUT temperature series being brought into line with GISSTEMP to save having to hide the divergence. http://manicbeancounter.com/2011/04/05/nasa-excludes-an-inconvenient-figure-on-2010-temperatures/

It is not just ex-post adjustments of individual temperature series that creates an artificially large warming trend. There are also the statistical methods used to determine the “average” reading.
Last week Steve McIntyre a paper that found that the C20th warming could have been almost doubled by homogenization techniques. Techniques that are unique to climate science, and have not been published (and therefore scrutinized and tested) in the statistics literature.http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/17/station-homogenization-as-a-statistical-procedure/

Remember my forecast Eric. Two Solar/Earth Years ‘Wet’/Normal, followed by Five Years ‘Dry’ Cycle. Starting Australian East Coast early January 2013. American East Coast five months before that. (Thirty degrees longitude/month with the Westward Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field) You are criticizing something you haven’t read Eric, therefore your opinions are based on ignorance – and should be ignored.
For Stephen Wilde; The movement of Dry Air from the deserts, the circulation of ensuing moisture at the Poles, then subsequent movement back toward the Equator, is a function of Convection and Axial Spin. The ‘mechanism for this is explained in ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’, Alex S. Gaddes 1990.(pp 110 – 115, ‘ Model of a Convection ‘Still’.) Nothing to do with ENSO.
An updated version of the above work (with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com

Trust me, I won’t forget your forecast and will put you to it. My opinion is certainly valid, and it has A LOT to do with ENSO, plus coming from you, who advocates a book which dismantles the ENSO theory. I’ve had trouble with your e-mail, my computer for some reason won’t pull it up, if you could give me a few of your forecast would be greatly appreciated. I’ll cut you some slack, but I will put you to your forecasts and if you are wrong I’ll be sure to let you know about it, if you’re right, well, I might reconsider my views Soon enough, we’ll find out just how good your forecasts are.

Steve, you are doing the job that investigative journalists should be doing. This scam has been exposed so many times that I’ve lost count. It’s no longer about getting at the truth it’s about making people like Al Gore very rich and formerly obscure and boring climate scientists famous for the wrong reasons. What a runaway calamity.😉

How does the Dry air in the Southern Hemisphere get to the Arctic Stephen? I look forward to receiving your request for ‘Tomorrow’s Weather.’ Hopefully you wont encounter the same ‘difficulties’ as Eric.

Oh, please, you seem to have “difficulties’ of your own. If you are so confident in your theory, then why don’t you give a just few of your predictions? I also don’t appreciate the fact you continue to bash the ENSO theory, yet you don’t provide evidence against it, instead you resort to personal attacks and baseless claims. If the ENSO theory is so bad, then give me instances where in el nino years, Australia was wet, or in La nina years where Australia was dry. Better yet, show me in a warm PDO and el nino, where the North American continent was dry or, with a cold PDO and La nina where it was wet overall. We’re seeing very similar weather patterns now as the 1950s because of the natural cycles of PDO, AMO, and ENSO. As Joe Bastardi has pointed out for several years, things like, east coast hurricanes, drought in Texas during la nina, and the hot summers over the plains, or the cold el nino winters following at least 2 years of la nina, have all shown up before under the similar pattern with a cold PDO, warm AMO, and these things are showing up again. Last year’s Hurricane Irene, perfectly fit his ideas, drought in texas the previous 2 years, and now with approaching el nino has began to recover, the hot summers over the plains in 1952, 1953, and 1954, all fit the last 3 summers including this one, 2010, and 2011. How about the cold el nino winters that follow double la ninas like 2009-10, and THIS UPCOMING WINTER too. I’m NOT saying ENSO is the ONLY factor, but certainly plays a major role in weather patterns like this, and as I’ve shown you before, ENSO also fit your “dry/wet cycles” of the 1950s. If you are going to continue to ridicule my ideas, show me instances where the “fantasy” (as you put it) ENSO index didn’t play a role in global weather patterns.

“How does the Dry air in the Southern Hemisphere get to the arctic Stephen?” The dry air over the southern hemisphere has to go over the ocean, most likely the pacific, and on it’s journey it would have to cross the equatorial region in the pacific where ENSO is being closely monitored. It would probably take a fairly considerable amount of time for any airmass to get from the Southern Hemisphere to the Arctic, and most likely the properties of the aforementioned airmass would change considerably as the air circulates around the globe. The wind patterns and air pressure over the pacific (ENSO & SOI) would also help to determine the wind patterns into which this airmass would go, and how it would change or modify along its journey.

I provided you with ‘hind-casts’ of the 50’s Eric. (which you failed to provide) I provided you with forecasts for January 2013 to 2019.( Take off five months for the US. East Coast.) I’m not talking about ‘hot summers in Texas’ or ‘over the plains’ I’m talking about ‘Dry’ Cycles (and the intervening ‘Wet’/Normal Periods) that affect the entire Planet (thirty degrees longitude/month East to West, with the Solar Orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.) Your attempts to usurp my forecasts and replace them with ENSO ‘drivel’ reminds me of Bill Cosby trying to put petrol in his Volkswagen Beetle, he says to the equally perplexed drive-way attendant, ‘Just pour it over the top, maybe it’ll suck in somewhere.’ Here are some more ‘hind – casts’ for you to play with.
2007 ‘Wet’/Normal, 2008.25 ‘Dry’ Cycle, 2009 ‘Wet’/Normal. 2010.5 ‘Dry’ Cycle,
2011 ‘Wet’/Normal, 2012 ‘Dry’ Cycle. (Australia, take five months off for US. East Coast.)
This is without the ‘wild card’ of explosive volcanic activity (albedo) but we wont confuse you with that at this stage.
1952 – 1956 was an equivalent predecessor of the coming Five Year ‘Dry’ Cycle of 2015 -2019 (Australia) Nothing to do with ENSO.
No need to get ‘stroppy’, If you provide me with an email address I’ll send you ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (which contains forecasts to 2055.) Can you (or ENSO) provide me with an equivalent forecast? (before the fact of course.)
Stephen (above) had no trouble obtaining the pdf, I suggest you try again, perhaps on a different computer.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge BOTH the solar cycles and the oceanic cycles like I’m not talking about your ‘wet/dry cycles” I’m talking about ENSO which has been shown to effect the entire planet. Conditions like Texas being dry, the midwest being hot, and east coast hurricanes, all of which are consistent with variable ENSO cycles of a warm PMO and cold AMO, like the 1950s. PMO, AMO, SOI, and PDO is quite sad, and you fail to realize that since 71% of earth’s surface is ocean and the fact that the oceans have 1000x the amount of energy as the atmosphere, and in combination with the sun, are the main contributors of climate.You also realize that ONCE AGAIN your “wet/dry” cycles of Australia fit perfectly with the ENSO theory, (wet la nina, dry el nino) 2007 “wet/normal” el nino in January fades away to neutral conditions and la nina takes over in the fall, which means mostly neutral and la nina which means average-wet, wow, perfectly fits your “predictions. I could keep going, but I think I would be wasting my time with someone like you. Then, your continuous personal attacks are very childish comparing me to Bill Cosby, as they have no factual basis to them, very similar of the president’s administration or AGW clowns who have no record to run on instead they personally attack anyone who disagrees. “ENSO has NOTHING to do with it…. it’s MYTH…FANTASY.” Wow, just keep the comments coming, you’re clearly expressing the Dunning-Kreuger effect where you have become so confident and self-indulged in your predictions, that you become incompetent to any opposing arguments. Of course we can provide you with an accurate forecast, I’ll make one right here. Australia will be in a drier than normal pattern through about April of next year, then the pattern will shift to a wetter than normal pattern overall as a double-la nina begins to take effect. Overall, drier than normal for Australia until spring 2013, then average conditions until fall 2013, when a wetter than normal weather pattern will ensue and 2014 will be wetter than normal, and early 2015 will end up being wetter than normal as well.

The original, Reykjavik temperature series is corroborated by the recent tree-ring proxy reconstruction for Northern Scandinavia by Jan Esper et al. This showed that the peak C20th temperatures were in the late 1930s for am area 50 to 350 miles north of Reykjavik.

hi snapple, can u please focus on tyhe scientific questions? in a country with lot of “respectable” peoples having their hands covered by the blood of thousand of innocent peoples worldwide i do not understand the reason why the statements by oliver should be censored because of morality. we are talking about science. if you want to talk about who is a goody or a bady is possibly another blog.